The soap surrounding PsyStar, the company that offers a Mac clone for sale, just keeps on running. After the initial launch, the company was plagued by doubt and mystery surrounding its actual existence, but soon after videos started popping up of the OpenComputer out in the wild, beyond the company itself. Thanks to CNet, the company may now have fully redeemed itself.

So, for about $50.00 USD less, you get a computer that is faster than a Mac Mini, yet is less useful because it doesn't have certain hardware and software features found on the Mac.

While I am no fan of Apple, I believe there is more to the end-user experience than just raw computing speed. I also recognize that what Apple sells is an integrated computing solution, not just an operating system installed on a computer.

So, for about $50.00 USD less, you get a computer that is faster than a Mac Mini, yet is less useful because it doesn't have certain hardware and software features found on the Mac.

While I am no fan of Apple, I believe there is more to the end-user experience than just raw computing speed. I also recognize that what Apple sells is an integrated computing solution, not just an operating system installed on a computer.

Well, I think the greatest thing is the fact it is a crap product; there are so many issues with it, who would honestly waste a whole bundle of money on an inferior product? I mean, if MacOS X is *really* that important - then wouldn't one assume that purchasing the real thing as being better?

thats not the point. if they can do it, others will follow and give apple a run for the money like Power computing did in the past.

Did you even *READ* what I wrote; the alternative they have provided is crap, absolutely crap. The point of competition is for the competitor to provide a BETTER, meaning SUPERIOR product. The product which they are providing is crap. End of story.

What they did was a half-assed hack job; if they truly wanted to be some damn effort into it, they would have gotten a motherboard, paid for an EFI firmware off one of the many firmware companies and would have made things work properly out of the box - and for the damn thing not to sound like a jet engine when turned on.

Again, I stress - the whole point of a competitor is for that very competitor to provide a superior product to the status quo. The company in question has failed miserably at it. Its nothing more than a publicity stunt made by an individual (or individuals) who have far too much time on their hands.

I'm not sure who buys something just because it's cheaper...but I'm not one to look for lower quality as a checkpoint in my buying habits.

My problem with the mini is it's lack of extensibility, not it's price. If Psystar can match the experience and offer me a box that can be upgraded past the quality of a mini for less money initially but offer it with lower quality, I would buy it.

"Again, I stress - the whole point of a competitor is for that very competitor to provide a superior product to the status quo.

Just as I told Kroc in the last thread: competition doesn't have to be on quality. It can be on price too. You don't have to be better to compete. Just be cheaper. "

Who the f*ck said anything about quality - how about some damn things working first! the very basics actually working! geeze, imagine if an OEM sold a box with only have the hardware working - you *REALLY* would come on here and parade the same half-assed excuse of, "oh, well, its is cheap!" - of course you wouldn't!

I know its 'cool' to senselessly bash Apple, but for god sake, using a half ass piece of crap as a trojan horse to jemmy open the Mac OS X EULA is pathetic to say the least. All pathetic attempts like the above prove is exactly what Apple wants to say - that only they can produce an experience because they control the whole widget. That is what crap attempts like the above do, nothing else. Re-enforcing of the status quo rather than challenging it.

Of course; but then again, I don't senselessly bash Microsoft. I don't like their products, but I don't do what some people do here and pirate their products as if pirating products were 'sticking it to the man'.

If you look at the big picture, the psystar computer and how it stands up to a genuine mac doesn't matter. What matters is how Apple is going to handle this and what the outcome is going to be if and when they try to put a stop to it. If they ignore it then other people might go the extra mile to really build a comparable system to a genuine mac in terms of experience and probably for a cheaper price. This is just the start, testing the waters if you will. It may or may not be shut down where it stands, who knows at this point.

"thats not the point. if they can do it, others will follow and give apple a run for the money like Power computing did in the past.

Did you even *READ* what I wrote; the alternative they have provided is crap, absolutely crap. The point of competition is for the competitor to provide a BETTER, meaning SUPERIOR product. The product which they are providing is crap. End of story.
"

Before switching into Snark-drive you should reflect on your own reading comprehension. The previous poster wrote that your argument is missing the point, you even quote that part. S/He presumely does so because s/he read your post, got the point and disagreed. You, however, fail to get the previous poster's point -- which is: once proven that competition is possible at all, better competition will arise -- and attack a strawman.

if they can do it, others will follow and give apple a run for the money like Power computing did in the past.

This isn't a very good analogy. Power Computing, Motorola, etc. were all legally licensing the Mac OS back in the mid-90's. They didn't have the hardware-software interfacing issues that seem to plague the Psystar computer.

Jobs pulled the plug because the clone makers were only taking market share from Apple and weren't actually growing the user base (ie. the revenue they made on the OS licenses was much much less than what they lost from not selling the hardware). In the case of Psystar, I wouldn't be surprised if they avoid litigation altogether and simply let them go out of business because they're selling a non-updatable, loud, semi-compatible computer that has zero support from the OS developer.

I wouldn't be surprised if they avoid litigation altogether and simply let them go out of business

This is not an option, because if you don't actively enforce your patent/copyright, then in the eyes of the law, you've effectively abandoned your patent/copyright. Another reason to go after infringers is to send a warning to future would-be infringers.

This is not an option, because if you don't actively enforce your patent/copyright, then in the eyes of the law, you've effectively abandoned your patent/copyright. Another reason to go after infringers is to send a warning to future would-be infringers.

There is no infringement of patent nor copyright in this case. At worst, Pystar is merely reselling legally purchased Apple software, perhaps at a profit.

A patent is a legal monopoly on the manufacture and initial sale of claimed technology. If there were a patent infringement, Pystar would be copying Apple technology and selling the copied technology without paying Apple for it (and claiming/suggesting that Pystar invented the technology). However, Pystar has presumably paid for their OS X copies, and are merely reselling them.

The case would be similar if Pystar was infringing on Apple's copyright, except it would involve just the code in a very literal way. But, again, Pystar is not copying Apple and profiting from it -- Pystar is presumably purchasing individual copies of OS X and reselling those copies individually.

Actually, there is a way that Apple could restrict the use of OS X, but it would be difficult to enforce and Apple wouldn't look very nice if they did.

This is not an option, because if you don't actively enforce your patent/copyright, then in the eyes of the law, you've effectively abandoned your patent/copyright.

This bit of misinformation comes up again and again, and is seriously in error, so I try to take the time to correct it when I see it. What you are saying is true for trademarks, which are a completely different thing than a copyright or patent. If you do not act to protect your trademark you risk losing claim on it. Patents and copyrights are perfectly enforceable until their expiration date, regardless of whether or not the holder is dilligent in enforcing them. In fact, lying low for years while a technology, like mp3, spreads and becomes indispensible, and then showing up with your patent to collect when you have a captive audience is a popular and effective practice. These are called "submarine patents" for obvious reasons.

Yup, really sticking it to Apple with that fan noise and shoddy setup there.

Is there any OSNews user (or otherwise) out there that can provide a video/pics of their hackintosh that isn't the laughing stock of Mac owners?

Is there any Mac user that isn't inexplicably smug, regardless of the fact that they over payed for flashy hardware and bought into the marketing hype of a company that systematically supports vendor lock, DRM, and proprietary everything? All with a smile on their faces, as they tell you they love open source. Please! If Apple had the market share of Microsoft, they'd be a far worse master.

I do agree with you that "hackintoshes" are dumb though. If you're going to go through all that trouble, then certainly you have time to install Hardy and deal with any quirks that MIGHT arise in the process...And when you're done, you get a truly free system, with no worries that Apple will try to kill your OS with their next auto-update

...a company that systematically supports vendor lock, DRM, and proprietary everything? All with a smile on their faces, as they tell you they love open source.

Vendor lock - you say tomato, I say tomeito. One man's "vendor lock" is another man's vertical integration. And the market seems to like it.

DRM - there are two pieces of software in Mac OS X that "support" DRM - DVD Player and iTunes. The reasons for this are all too apparent. At least Apple didn't put DRM code in the kernel of their OS, like some other OS vendors we know.

Proprietary everything - now I'm confused... Nearly all protocols and file formats Apple use are or at least are based on open standards. They also use (and contribute to) a lot of open source projects and even release some of the software they develop as open source (e.g launchd, CalDAV server, etc.). On the hardware side, they use almost entirely standard types of components, interconnects, etc. The only way apple can be any less "proprietary everything" is if they release Mac OS X in its entirety as open source and give other OEMs license to bundle it with their machines (and likely close shop as result).

Proprietary everything - now I'm confused... Nearly all protocols and file formats Apple use are or at least are based on open standards.

What do you mean all of their formats are open? Then why can't I put music on an iPhone or iPod touch without iTunes (or a regular iPod, for that matter, without the help of 3rd party hacks)? Apple has gone through a lot of trouble and spent good money adding technology to STOP customers from using the device they pay for as they wish. Its their way or the highway! If you happen to use an operating system that they haven't ported iTunes to, you lose.

Why is it every other .mp3 player in the world works just fine as a mass storage device? If Microsoft sold .mp3 players that only synced with WMP, everyone would pitch a fit. Apple does the same junk! No thanks.

I was going to spend £1500, no quibbles, on my laptop, preferably a Sony (as my previous Sony did) - the MacBookPro was the best value by far and has more features than any Sony in that range for the money I ended up spending (£1330). I don't understand where you pulled this "over payed" thing from, other than your arse. The other Sonys I was looking at at the time had no bluetooth, no built in camera, they were thicker, no backlit keyboard, lower spec, the list goes on...

Maybe prices are different in your country but the MacBookPro's are incredibly overpriced in the US.

I priced out a normal MacBook and it was okay compared to what I could get from Dell, just a little over-priced (could get an XPS m1330 for the same price with nvidia graphics, bigger HDD etc), but the MacBookPro is WAY over priced.

I just ordered a Dell XPS m1530 for $1,500.
It has a Penryn 9300 2.5GHz w/ 6Mb Cache.
320Gb HDD
Nvidia 8600 GT Graphics
4GB RAM
1920x1200 resolution on a 15.4!!! MBP only has 1440x900 I would have been happy with 1680x1050 on a 15.4 but what the hell...why not go all out.
2MP Camera
Intel Wireless N
9 Cell Battery
Bluetooth mouse
Remote control

Basically better than the MacBookPro in every way including price. It was actually about $2,000 after a $599 discount, but anyone could get that discount if you start with the "best" configuration. Then through my employer I got a 12% and then a 10% discount that brought it down to about $1500

Is there any Mac user that isn't inexplicably smug, regardless of the fact that they over payed for flashy hardware and bought into the marketing hype of a company that systematically supports vendor lock, DRM, and proprietary everything? All with a smile on their faces, as they tell you they love open source. Please! If Apple had the market share of Microsoft, they'd be a far worse master.

I'll raise my hand in response to that. I started with DOS on a 386 back in the 80's, had Windows and Linux (plus some other alternatives like BeOS which I still love) on a lot of shitty PC hardware throughout the 90's and early 2000's, and during that time I listened to the PC fanboys who said Macs were overpriced proprietary junk that wasn't worth the cost of the parts they were made from. Finally I got sick of buying new power supplies and video cards every three months. I got tired of reinstalling my crappy DRM-infested activation riddled Windows OS that insisted I stole it though I paid for it twice already. I was done with having to pick and choose my hardware purchases just so Linux would install without a hitch, and then still have these odd quirks that were unsolvable. I bought my first Mac in May 2005 and it was literally the most stress-relieving decision I've ever made.

I went from all that frustration listed above to a machine that just freaking works. From the moment I pressed the power button on my new Mac Mini I was amazed at the silence of the machine, the way it stayed out of my way, and the utter simplicity of setting it up and using it. I had a computer that did what I told it to with minimal fuss and it didn't tell me I was a guilty-until-proven-innocent OS thief. I had a machine with almost all the tools I needed to get my work and play done right out of the box, and the few programs I needed beyond what was there, were easily obtainable. It even had the power of BSD underneath, which I've always preferred to Linux anyway when it comes to a UNIX like system.

Has it been perfect? Of course not, nothing in life ever is. I gave up the Mini a year later when I wanted to get back into gaming; I sold it to a friend who wanted to get into Macs as well, and I built a fairly powerful Windows/Linux box with money from the sale and what I could scrape together. A year of hell ensued, where I went through two motherboards, three video cards, two hard drives and a DVD burner; I felt like it was the 90's all over again. So much for saving money, right? So now I am the proud owner of a used eMac. Not much more powerful than that old Mini, but it works and once again I am computing stress-free.

So to answer your question, no I'm not smug at all, I'm simply satisfied. A computer is a tool and to get the job done it has to be of a certain quality or you're not going to get good results. I'm willing to pay a premium for a tool that has all the things I need and won't break on me every three months.

I have a home build Quad core intel PC, which is running 64 bit vista ultimate. PERFECTLY !

So just because you can't figure out how to make your own computer without f--king it up, does NOT mean it is a bad idea.

Also it does NOT make any sense you compare a Mac which is factory produced to a home made PC. It only shows you are bad at building computers.

If you would have bought a factory build PC, it would most likely have worked without any problems at all, and you would still have been able to play games, have a LOT more flexibility with hardware and all the other good things about a flexibel PC.

So the whole point of your posting is to tell us you are crap at building your own PC,

Well apparently you misunderstood my post; the only hardware that actually failed on me were the hard drives and the DVD burner; those were manufacturing defects that had nothing to do with how I built the computer. Physically putting the system together is the easiest and most error-free part of the process, something you'd know if you really have built a system from scratch. Getting Windows to understand that just because there's a new motherboard doesn't mean I stole the OS is another matter entirely. The motherboard and video card upgrades were just that: Upgrades so that I could try to keep up with the PC paradigm of more speed, more power every other month. I got tired of that steadily inclining treadmill and went back to a platform with up to 7-year hardware life cycles. That's a reassuring feeling.

Congratulations, you just made my point for me. The best buying decision I ever made was going back to the Mac platform. The only way to get a really good, really long-lasting PC is to spend a little extra money for the good stuff, right? So why is it such a sin to spend a little extra money on a Mac for an even better system, one that doesn't need upgrades every few months to keep up the penis-measuring race with the other PC fanboys?

Because everybody just knows that Macs are overpriced, overhyped pieces of junk. :-)

He says, as he is still using his 4 1/2 year old PowerMac G5 running Tiger and soon to be upgraded to Leopard. And all without having to spend all kinds of money upgrading the system.

And when I bought this system I actually paid less than I would have for two similarly equipped systems from Dell and Alienware. And also like you, it was the best computer related decision I have made in many years, probably more than most in here, of computing.

I will have to admit that this is being written on my PC. But that had XP Pro wiped out and replaced by BSD.
:-)

My self built computer is completely silent (<18dB). It is simply a matter of buying a high quality case (Antec Sonata II) and power supply (Channelwell). The high quality components in my computer (Asus MB, Corsair RAM, Samsung) drives) are all better quality than the components in Macs. It also cost me half the price of a mac mini in Australia.

Maybe this computer is not intended to be bought by "end-users", or let's say by the ones who'd like to have the "Apple experience".

Maybe it's more for the freaks and geeks, perhaps those who want to test their own software on a Mac (without having to pay the usual price), or maybe for those who want to use "Maccy" software like Adobe CS3 and so on, and don't give a damn about the standard iStuff like iVideo.

(and who knows, there might be some pirated iStuff-versions available soon

Well, if "freaks and geeks" are intended market for these, I'd have to call Psystar's business model a complete and utter failure. Geeks are much more likely to install OSX86 themselves on hardware they've built (with a good chance of it being faster and cheaper than this "Open Computer"). Unless, Psystar can come up with an actual "Mac, but cheaper and more extensible" they are in for a hasty death, even without Apple coming down on them with a thousand lawyers, because their business is simply not sustainable.

(BTW, pirated "iStuff" versions are already available all over the place, but if you are going to pirate the "iStuff", why don't you just pirate the whole damn thing and save yourself $150 (at least)?)

One feels that the process is going to get easier and easier, and that if Apple wants to stop it, its going to have to resort to more and more specific technical measures. Also, its going to be less and less about what hardware you are running it on, and more and more about where you bought that hardware. At that point it becomes unjustifiable in marketing terms, never mind legal ones.

Imagine two boxes with the same components in them, side by side. One you bought at Fry's, the other from Apple. The bios is the only difference. Well, the case too. Now, Apple in some technical way stops you installing on the same Intel main board, with the same processor, the same memory chips, the same graphics card, the same optical drive, the same hard disk, just because you did not buy these bits from them. How are they going to explain it?

What is there to explain - I write a piece of software, I chose how to distribute it.

I don't understand this feeling of entitlement people have when it comes to Mac OS X. Do understand - Apple doesn't owe you anything. They don't have to let you or anyone else run their software on a machine they don't approve of. Usually it doesn't make business sense for software vendors to restrict usage that way, so they don't do it. That doesn't mean that it is illegal, immoral or in any other way unacceptable or unreasonable. The reason Apple haven't yet implemented technical way to restrict Mac OS X to Apple branded hardware is either that it doesn't justify the expenses or that they don't see the need to play hardball with a fairly small group of hopeless geeks (or likely a bit of both). The moment their core business is threatened, Apple will throw all engineering resources on that task.

Very wrong - Apple does owe you. Once you've purchased a license to use the software you have certain rights. One of such rights is to run the software on hardware of your choice. The current situation with Apple's EULA can be easily explained with the following analogy: imagine Sony BMG started wrapping their CDs in an EULA which says "by unpacking this CD from this EULA you agree to only play said CD on a Sony-labeled CD player". No copyright holder can legally restrict the way licensed material is used. This is why in any sensible law system this kind of statement is automatically voided. Therefore it is also illegal to technically restrict such an act (e.g. by automatically aborting installation if you don't run on a genuine Apple computer).

The above statement of course does not apply to any other services associated with the copyrighted material. Apple may very well say that you are entitled to software updates only if run it on genuine hardware. This can be easily made part of a SLA (Service Level Agreement) and is in fact common industry practice - e.g. Oracle on supports you if you run their DB on something like RHEL, not anything like Debian.

Although I agree that shrink wrapped software EULAs should not be (and may even not be) considered as binding as a license contract you agree to before the purchase, I still disagree that they are void and null. Even if you are unaware of the terms of the license at the time of purchase, which in the case of Apple and Mac OS X is very unlikely, you would, probably rightfully, expect to be able to return the software and get a refund find those terms out, but I don't see why a company should not be able to set such terms. Ultimately, it boils down to - a rights owner should be able determine under what restriction they give you a license to use their property. Although your example seems absurd, because it clearly doesn't make business sense, I don't see why would it not make legal one. (Funny you should use Sony in particular, though, since they have been trying to do almost exactly that for years now, although with hardware restrictions and not legal ones, with Betamax, UMD, ATRAC, etc.) As I said, the rights owner has the right to put stupid restrictions and you have the right to give them the finger. If you let the free market decide, it will either force a change of the restrictions or make the rights owner go out of business and make room for people and companies that have more sense.

People keep on confusing Eulas and conditions. Its not about Eulas, its about conditions.
Some conditions can be valid and binding in a Eula. They are exactly the same conditions that can be valid and binding in other contracts.

Some cannot be valid and binding, because they are contrary to the law of the jurisdiction in question. Like, for instance, you cannot by Eula, or by any other means, oblige someone to give up their rights under consumer protection law. You cannot get someone to sell himself into slavery. Two under age minors cannot enter into a contract of marriage. And so on and so on.

It is not the Eula that counts.

No, Apple owes us nothing. Apple does not have to sell its product at retail. But it has chosen to do so, and having done that, it cannot tell us what to install it on. Because this is contrary to competition law and to consumer protection law. It cannot impose these particular post sales restraints on use in any sort of contract, Eula or not. Just like two minors cannot marry without parental consent in a Eula!

People need to get over Eulas, get over generalities, and start focussing on whether specific contractual terms are lawful and enforceable at civil law in a particular jurisdiction. The answer is going to be, this prohibition on installation is not, at least in Anglo Saxon jurisdictions. Thom thinks it will be in Holland. I am very doubtful - I think the Competition Directorate in Brussels will most likely have something to say about it.

And I think Apple would be much wiser not to try to enforce it, if there is an EC entrant. No company in its right mind wants the Competition Direcorate taking a close and interested look into its business practices, and that is what would happen.

Wrong again. Apple's license clearly states that you are NOT allowed to run their software wherever you like. What magical non-existent license do you have that tells you, you can run OSX on whatever you like just because you want to to? You either believe the EULA is enforceable or you don't. If you do then you are dead wrong aboutit s content, if you don't then you are going to do what you want anyway, regardless of reality.

Its quite simple. Some clauses in the Eula may be valid and enforceable because they are consistent with the law in the US or wherever.

Others are not, because they are not consistent with the law of the land.

I think that the Eula is perfectly clear about what you may do with the OS, it forbids you to install it on any other than Apple hardware. Other clauses in the Eula may be valid, binding and enforceable.

But this one is not, because it is inconsistent with the law. Just as if the Eula said that by opening the package and installing the software, you agreed to have all disputes settled by the courts of Azerbijan, and you also relinquished all your rights under US consumer protection legislation. That would be invalid and unenforceable also.

Its the conditions that are the problem, its not whether they are in a Eula.

Top of the news!
Microsoft releases critical update that kills all word processors except for their very own, Word. A Microsoft spokesman states "I don't know where this sense of entitlement comes from we don't owe anyone anything, it's our software."

Comments
By: Joe Blow on May 1, 2008 Subject: Dieeee Microsoft!
Microsoft is such an anti competitive monopoly they should be blown to oblivion!

Bottom of the News!
Apple locks users even further into their own technology by killing all instances of its software running on hardware not purchased directly from Apple. An Apple spokesman states "I don't know why people think they are entitled to buy our software and run it on whatever they want, we don't owe anyone anything, it's our software."

Top of the news!
Microsoft releases critical update that kills all word processors except for their very own, Word. A Microsoft spokesman states "I don't know where this sense of entitlement comes from we don't owe anyone anything, it's our software."

I fail to see how this is equivalent, or relevant for that matter, to the subject at hand. The issue here is not that Apple are using their monopoly in one market to destroy their competition in another. Apple are not strong-arming some poor small OS developer into providing their product exclusively to Apple.

Apple have been developing Mac OS X specifically for the purpose of selling Apple branded hardware. There is nothing wrong with that, because it doesn't preclude anyone from developing an equivalent alternative or even developing a superior to OS X product. Also it doesn't stop anyone from bundling such a product with their hardware (e.g. DellOS, HPOS, etc.)

The only double standard is the one made up by people like you, who want to prove how blind the "Apple faithful" are and how evil Apple actually are.

There is no difference except that Apple is getting away with what Microsoft wishes they could get away with (vendor lock-in baby!). Apple and Microsoft are one in the same and you are a fool if you think otherwise.

It's one thing not to support non apple hardware but it's an entirely different story to intentionally break the software on non apple hardware. If that's not trying to strong arm would be OSX users into buying Apple hardware...

What you are missing is that they sell the OS at retail. They do not have to, but they do. Having done that, they are doing something unlawful in attempting to restrain people from using it in certain ways. What is wrong is, they are trying to tell you how to use it after you have bought it, and are trying to link sales of it to sales of their hardware.

No requirement on them to sell it at retail. But having done it, this other stuff is not doable. Bricking your machine is also not doable. Its messing with a product (the software) which is no longer theirs because they sold it. And also messing with your hardware perhaps. Unlike iPhone, where they never sold the software at retail.

Tough, but once you've sold somethng, it is no longer yours. They will have to live with it.

If your assessment was true, then once you bought a piece of software at retail, you would be free to use it anywhere you want, as often and on as many machines as you want. This is clearly not the case, since with the media, you are also purchasing a license to actually use the software. The terms of the license dictate where you can use the software.

If your assessment was true, then once you bought a piece of software at retail, you would be free to use it anywhere you want, as often and on as many machines as you want.

Actually...as long as you own those machines then you are also allowed to install and use that software on as many of them as you wish. Atleast here in Finland. You DO own the actual copy of the software you have bought and as such you are allowed to do whatever you may wish with it as long as you don't break copyright laws.

If your assessment was true, then once you bought a piece of software at retail, you would be free to use it anywhere you want, as often and on as many machines as you want.

Actually...as long as you own those machines then you are also allowed to install and use that software on as many of them as you wish. Atleast here in Finland. You DO own the actual copy of the software you have bought and as such you are allowed to do whatever you may wish with it as long as you don't break copyright laws.

In this particular case, I would say that it is a moral gray area, or at least it seems like one for me: if I purchase just one copy of the software, I understand that I have the rights to use only one instance of that software at a time, despite having multiple computers and that if I decide to install it in more than one computer - as I most likely would, no doubt - it would be at my own risk. I do believe that the software manufacturer is indeed entitled to receive payment for additional copies that I might want to use and that's why I would prefer to deal with those companies that offer better deals with their licenses such as "you can install this software in up to N computers"-style of license.

In fact, it does sound like that kind of post-sale restriction that would be actually fair for both parties.

Having said that, once I bought the software, it is mine and mine alone and if I want to use it for toilet paper (a rather expensive one, though), that's my business. As long as I am not sharing copies of the damn thing, neither Apple nor anybody else can say anything about it...

If your assessment was true, then once you bought a piece of software at retail, you would be free to use it anywhere you want, as often and on as many machines as you want. This is clearly not the case, since with the media, you are also purchasing a license to actually use the software. The terms of the license dictate where you can use the software.

No. This is a non-sequitur. First, copyright would stop you. Second, it could be that a post sale restraint on use which restricts you to installing one copy is lawful. But this does not mean a post sale restriction on use which restricts what you install that one copy on is lawful.

Technical people need to start thinking as specifically about these issues as they do about software they write. This is just sloppy vague thinking. There is only one thing going on here: a restraint on what you install software on. It stands or falls on its own merits. It has no other implications.

On the other hand, I can put the mini almost literally in my pocket, it is dead quiet, I can use it with wireless (bluetooth) keyboard and mouse from start to shutdown (including waking the machine from sleep), and I get Apple warranty and support/updates for the OS.

(One also gets iLife and other bundled software and a remote with the mini, but I'm not among those who use them all that much, so I'll let you decide if they are a plus or not. Oh, and since I mentioned sleep mode, does the Open Computer support sleep? I would think it doesn't, since unlike Windows' hibernate, OS X sleep doesn't write memory to disk but rather keeps it powered.)

Every morning when i boot up my computer, a grub menu appears and
presents these 4 choices: Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.9; Mac OS X Leopard
10.5.1; PCLinuxOS 2007 ; Mandriva 2008. I spend almost all my
computing time in Tiger which despite the fact that it is running on an
AMD64 3000/Geforce 7300GT/Nforce4 chipset pc is 100% totally
functional and fast as a scalded dog. Although i never use it, i do have
iLife installed and working fine.
But i would not buy a Psystar pc,it's more fun to construct it yourself.

With all the things that are wrong with that computer, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

I've built a Hackintosh out of a an HP factory built computer. I Have managed to get everything to work (minus crappy pci atheros wireless, Usb dongle works tho). It has specs nearly the same as the psystar and the price of it today is probably the same or comparable to the psystar (added bonus is that the hd makes more noise than the fan i.e. very little).

I'm sure it is just a question of tweaking certain drivers, but as a first attempt they could have done a better job.

1. That there is no actual copyright infringment or illegal circumvention being carried out by PsyStar in making this hackintosh work.

2. Given the above being true, that Apple is forced to sue based PsyStar based on infringment of the EULA. Hopefully that'll give a ruling (finally) on the enforcability of the EULA (in the US at least).

Personally, given #1 being true, I don't see Apple having much of a leg to stand on. If the software runs on "off the shelf" hardware (I'm looking at the Atari 2600 clones here), I can't see the EULA being a big enough stick to stop the practice.

I love how well it illustrates the hardware margin though and just serves to show how fantastically overpriced Apple hardware is....and don't give me that crap about "tight integration"--so what, they take off the shelf stuff, then build the kernal and services specifically to the hardware used. Big deal. I thought that was kind of what compiling your own Linux kernel was all about. Sure, maybe it's worth a bit of a premium, but when, for the same price as a mac mini, I can get a bigger CPU, 3x the RAM, over 2x the HDD, ditch the integrated graphics for a Nvidia card, and throw in a couple more firewire ports, who cares if the fan's loud. Big deal....wander down to your local hardware shop and buy a more quiet fan if it bothers you.

Maybe the premium is a good value when you bundle in the 284 units of smugness and 967 units of trendy-ness that comes in every box.